Part of the Global Plot to Expose Moonbats, conspiracy nuts, and anti-Semites, especially the Jewish anti-Semitic variety.
The leftwing Neo-Nazi web magazine Counterpunch has described Plaut thus: "One of the most pernicious writers is Steven Plaut, a man who could be thought of as Israel's Daniel Pipes."

I have long believed the world would be much better off if Hollywood airheads would stick to entertainment and never pretend to be intellectuals, spouting off with their .ideas. about politics, diplomacy, etc. I am no less convinced that popular literary figures do little more than embarrass themselves when they attempt to serve as political commentators.

Amos Oz is arguably Israel's best-known writer and at the same time the leading member of Israel's Literary Left. Proudly declaring himself a major thinker in the 'peace movement,' Oz celebrates his political biases openly.

I am in the large hall of a Belgian university to listen to a speech by Oz, who is to receive an honorary doctorate and meet with students and faculty. Oz's books have been translated into many languages and he is well known in Europe. He has been invited to speak about literature to the university audience, but devotes the entire speech to politics, without mentioning literature even once. Oz is an eloquent speaker, but there is an enormous gap between his command of words and images and the depth of his understanding of political reality.

There is an old saying that a shallow moral symmetry is the hobgoblin of small minds. Oz is the master of shallow moral symmetry. The Arab-Israeli conflict (which he invariably calls the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which it is not) is neither black vs. white nor good against bad, he tells his listeners, but rather a conflict between two goods, even if the behavior of both sides is often that of two bads. He condemns Israeli 'oppression' and mistreatment of Palestinians as morally symmetric to Palestinian terrorism and xenophobia.

Oz is at his silliest when he tries to distinguish between stark unequivocal moral choices and complex ambiguous ones. 'You Europeans have a tendency to frame everything in simplistic good vs. bad terms,' he says. 'This is OK for some conflicts, like that between fascism and anti-fascism, or that between colonialism and anti-colonialism, or that between the U.S. and Vietnamese, but the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is not that.'

Of course, the allegedly simple moral conflicts offered by Oz tell us more about him than about the conflict. Anti-fascists have at times been worse than fascists; anti-colonialists generally were far more savage and brutal than European colonialists; and Oz's insistence that the U.S. was the unambiguous evil power in Vietnam is little more than the attempt of an Israeli leftist to pander to fashionable anti-Americanism, to ingratiate himself with those who imagine Europe is the moral superior of the U.S. - something Oz tries to do repeatedly throughout the evening.

The other problem with Oz's silly characterization of moral clarity vs. ambiguity is that the Arab-Israeli conflict is actually as morally unambiguous as was World War II. Yes, Allied troops sometimes conducted acts of injustice and, yes, German and Japanese civilians were often killed as the war was fought out, but that changes nothing about the moral unambiguousness of that conflict.

The Arab-Israeli conflict exists because the Arab world, controlling 22 states and territory nearly twice that of the United States (including Alaska), is unwilling to allow the Jews to enjoy any self-determination or control over even a tiny piece of territory. Ultimately, the tremendous damage that Oz and his kind have done has been in muddying what should be a clear moral understanding of the Middle East war, all in the name of the sanctity of moral symmetry, and this muddying has undercut Israeli willingness to resist and fight.

Oz devotes his entire speech to promotion of the 'two-state solution,' by which Israel will withdraw to the pre-1967 borders, removing nearly all settlements, making way for a Palestinian state. This solution is not liked by either side, says Oz, but perhaps 80% of those on both sides declare they expect that this is what in fact will happen. That of course is not exactly the same as accepting a plan or policy as legitimate, and Oz diplomatically skips over the inconvenient fact that nearly all Arabs see this 'solution' as a temporary stage in the process of destroying Israel. Oz declares over and over that the bulk of Palestinians understand that Israel is 'here to stay' - something that would come as a great shock to them.

In reality, Israel's decades-long pursuit of a national policy of surrender, cowardice and weakness has convinced virtually all Palestinians that the Jews are on the run and that achieving their dream of exterminating Israel is now within their grasp. Oz declares that less than 30% of Palestinians support Hamas, and the audience smiles approvingly at this complete lie.

Very few in the audience know that two partitions for the purpose of creating 'two states for two peoples' have already been attempted. The first was the detachment of Eastern Palestine in 1921 to form Transjordan, a step that was supposed to make a Jewish homeland in all of Palestine west of the Jordan possible. Then, in 1947, the UN proposed a new partition of Western Palestine, creating an Arab Palestinian state in one half and a Jewish one in the other. The Arabs reacted by attempting to commit genocide against the Israeli Jews.

No one in the audience thinks to ask Oz about the total failure of his 'ideas' in the Gaza Strip (in a sense, a third partition). Almost immediately after Gaza.s Jews were expelled and the territory turned over to the Palestinians, Sderot became the first Israeli Guernica, bombarded daily by rockets; Ashkelon is now well on its way to becoming the second. In other words, Oz's lovely 'two state solution' was already implemented in part in Gaza, and it produced the worst terrorist bombardments of Israeli civilians in history.

Oz is at his most 'Peresian' (Peres-like) when he insists over and over that history is irrelevant, that there is nothing to be gained by trying to dredge up the past, to draw lessons from it. An inverse of George Santayana, who wrote, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," Oz tells the audience that his dream is to disconnect all the microphones whenever Arabs or Jews start to mention the past.

'I refuse altogether to look at history,' he says. Of course, learning from the past might allow na.ve audience members to pick out Oz's factual errors or to understand how his 'two-state partition' will achieve nothing more than a new all-out Arab war against Israel.

A few years back, a group of Israeli Jewish literary figures met in Haifa with Arab writers to discuss politics. Each of the Jewish writers - good doves all - got up and declared that he accepted the legitimacy of the Palestinian people, supported their right to a state, and acknowledged their having as much moral right to independence as that of the Jews. (I believe Amos Oz was one of the people present.) They waited for the Arab writers to get up and make similar statements about the legitimacy of Zionism and Jewish self-determination. Not a single one did.

A slang expresion among Israelis is 'Good Morning, Elijah.' It is a sarcastic statement, roughly analogous to the American 'Well, duh!' It is a wonderful literary summation of Israel's obtuse literary leftists.

Thank you for your note asking me what my reaction is to the recent event in which an Israeli tank crew fired a shell that killed some civilians.

Professor, I am not sure I understand your question. You asked what is my reaction to this incident.

My reaction is quite simply that if the Palestinians would stop sending mass murderers out to murder Jewish children and other Israeli civilians intentionally, then Israel would not have to send out tanks and other units to hunt down the murderers. If it were no longer necessary to send out Israeli tanks to hunt down Palestinian mass murderers, then errors in judgment, mistakes and mishaps in which Palestinian civilians and minors accidentally get killed would not take place.

It is all very simple. When the Arabs stop mass murdering Jews, there will no longer be any innocent Arabs accidentally killed or injured by Jews.

My reaction, in other words, is exactly the same as it would be had you asked me what was my reaction to the fact that many, many Japanese and German children died in the bombings of Cologne, Dresden, Berlin, Hamburg, Tokyo, Okinawa, and Hiroshima.

My reaction is: Tough.

Those who do not want innocents to be accidentally targeted must stop the fascist aggression and terrorism by the Arabs (like that of the Germans and Japanese), which makes such incidents inevitable. How many innocent children were killed in Afghanistan thanks to Islamist fascism? How many Iraqi civilians were injured in the two Gulf Wars? Whose fault was that?

People who support Palestinian terrorism make such deaths of Palestinian children inevitable and bear much of the blame.

Meanwhile, you claim that it is unfair of people to accuse you of being anti-Israel, and all the more so of being an anti-Semite. You say you are merely endorsing the positions of some Israeli leftists, and you name Uri Avnery and Shulamit Aloni. You say you endorse a complete withdrawal of Israel to its 1967 borders, removal of all settlements, and creation of a Palestinian state with half of Jerusalem as its capital . because you love Israel and want it to live in peace.

I do not believe you.

I do not believe that you love Israel. I do not believe that you desire Israel to survive and live in peace. I do not believe that YOU believe that your prescription will bring peace.

Suppose someone . a non-American . would announce that he is not anti-American, but he merely endorses the political position of people like Taliban John and Edward Said and Louis Farrakhan regarding the United States. Suppose he were to insist he is in fact PRO-American, but just has pro-positions of .dissident. Americans.

Of course, such a claim would be ludicrous. Such a person would be supporting American traitors, people driven by hatred of America. Such people.s .ideology. is nothing more than anti-Americanism, and foreigners supporting such people would be in effect admitting that they themselves are anti-America and wish America harm.

Your support of Uri Avnery and Shulamit Aloni is exactly the same thing. Israel.s leftist extremists are motivated by anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism in exactly the same way that the extremist left camp in America is motivated by hatred of America.

Moreover, your own positions belie your pretended love for Israel. When you support sanctions against Israel and against Israeli academic institutions because you disapprove of Israeli government policy, you are revealing your hostility to the existence of the country, not to this or that specific policy. You are not trying to influence Israel.s decision-making, you are delegitimizing all of Israel and exhibiting a desire to see Israel destroyed.

When you encourage those who are organizing mutiny and insubordination in Israel.s army, you are showing that you wish Israel destroyed. You are also showing your fundamentally anti-democratic proclivities.

If Israel.s far leftists wish to try to persuade the rest of the country of the correctness of their ideas, they are free to do so democratically. But mutiny is anti-democratic and designed to divide and paralyze Israel.s military and prevent Israel from making decisions about its own self-defense in a democratic manner.

But your position is even more untenable. At least Israel.s extremists will bear part of the costs of the foolish policies they advocate if such policies are adopted by their country. They have already borne parts of the costs of the Oslo debacle and they are at risk every time they go outside thanks to their own policies having been pursued.

You bear none of those costs or risks. You are seated on your comfortable suburban sofa over there and spouting advice. And if your advice turns out to be harmful, you can just sit back and say, .OOPS., and switch the channel.

But there are other reasons why I do not believe your protestations of affection for Israel. Israel has already applied your philosophy and your approach. It already turned most of the West Bank and Gaza over to the PLO, agreed to the establishment of a PLO state, offered the PLO parts of Jerusalem, and at Camp David Ehud Barak offered the PLO its entire wish list, including a partial .return. of Palestinian .refugees., the Old City of Jerusalem with the Western Wall, all of the West Bank and parts of pre-1967 Israel. You know the result perfectly well.

For the past ten years, every single step Israel has taken to implement YOUR philosophy and YOUR vision of peace has produced escalated violence and bloodshed. You have had more than ample empirical proof that YOUR approach is simply incorrect. Israel.s goodwill gestures and flexibility have ALWAYS produced Arab atrocities, not reductions in Arab hatred and violence. Israeli moderation always produces Arab aggression.

Israeli niceness is interpreted by the Arabs as weakness and destructibility. This is NOT a matter of .ideological disagreement. but of empirical proof.

The fact that you still advocate endless Israeli submission to Arab demands can be interpreted in one of two ways. Either you are too stupid to acknowledge the hundreds, perhaps thousands, of empirical proofs that your approach to settling the Arab-Israeli conflict is incorrect, or you in fact understand perfectly well that your approach is really designed to produce the destruction of Israel. I happen to believe the second explanation for your behavior as the correct one.

You continue to oppose all forms of Israeli self-defense short of capitulation, since the only form of defending herself you are willing to allow Israel is her complete submission to the Arab world.s dictates and her placing her neck in a noose where she has to trust the goodwill of the Arabs not to pull the rope.

I do not agree that you are a real Jewish patriot. I think you are a Jewish Taliban John, a Jewish Uncle Tom. I think you really want Israel weakened and destroyed because it will allow you to posture and feel righteous, that it will allow you to save face and avoid embarrassment when you are hanging out with your leftist friends.